Ford v. Telamon Corp.
K21C-02-005 NEP K21C-02-010 NEP
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jun 17, 2021Background:
- Plaintiffs filed consolidated civil suits in Feb 2021 alleging sexual-misconduct crimes by defendant Timothy McCrary; criminal charges mirroring the civil allegations were pending against McCrary and his criminal trial was set for August 16, 2021.
- McCrary moved to stay the civil proceedings until resolution of the criminal case, citing Fifth Amendment concerns and judicial economy; Telamon (co-defendant employer) indicated support for the stay at a hearing.
- Plaintiffs opposed a complete stay, arguing the Fifth Amendment does not cover all testimony and that delay would prejudice them (e.g., loss of evidence); they proposed a partial stay that would permit civil discovery from Telamon but defer discovery from McCrary.
- McCrary had not filed an answer or Rule 12(b) motion in the civil cases at the time of the motion.
- The court applied the Schulman-derived stay framework (examining criminal status and overlap, plus five balancing factors) and found the criminal case post-indictment and substantially overlapping the civil claims.
- Ruling: court granted a partial stay — Plaintiffs may not take discovery from McCrary nor require him to answer until the criminal case is resolved; Plaintiffs may pursue discovery from Telamon; plaintiffs may seek relief from the partial stay if the criminal matter remains unresolved by Oct. 1, 2021; joint status reports due Oct. 15, 2021.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay the civil proceedings pending criminal resolution | Stay unnecessary or only partial; Fifth Amendment not blanket protection; delay prejudices plaintiffs | Stay appropriate to protect McCrary's Fifth Amendment rights and promote judicial economy | Partial stay granted: no discovery from McCrary; civil case otherwise proceeds against Telamon; answer by McCrary deferred until criminal resolution |
| Scope of discovery from non-criminal co-defendant Telamon | Civil discovery should proceed against Telamon to avoid delay and preserve evidence | Telamon supported a stay but did not file papers; limited discovery from Telamon acceptable | Plaintiffs may seek discovery from Telamon while McCrary is protected from discovery |
| Requirement that McCrary file an answer or Rule 12 response | Plaintiffs urged McCrary to answer so civil case can proceed | McCrary sought to defer answering until after criminal case to avoid self-incrimination | McCrary need not file an answer or respond until the criminal matter is resolved |
| Relief timing if criminal case extends (prejudice vs. protection) | Delay risks stale/missing evidence; court should revisit stay if criminal case is prolonged | Protection of constitutional rights justifies temporary delay; revisit if extended | Court limited stay duration in effect; plaintiffs allowed to seek relief if unresolved by Oct. 1, 2021 and required joint status reports by Oct. 15, 2021 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Steigler, 300 A.2d 16 (Del. Super. 1972) (recognizing court's inherent authority to stay proceedings and stay factors)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (stay doctrine and balancing of competing interests for docket control)
- Texaco, Inc. v. Borda, 383 F.2d 607 (3d Cir. 1967) (federal endorsement of stay-analysis principles)
- Walsh Sec., Inc. v. Cristo Prop. Mgmt., Ltd., 7 F. Supp. 2d 523 (D.N.J. 1998) (observing that total stays are extraordinary and outlining stay considerations)